HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog134
:. )
e
e
Page 1 of 1
Josh Peters
From: William G. Funke [wgfunke@olypen.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26. 200212:11 PM
To: Josh Peters
Cc: Paul Taylor-Smith; DA Routt; Grant Colby; sussan.s.glenn@usace.army.mil
Subject: Port Ludlow Marina Expansion
Mr. Josh Peters
Jefferson County Office of
Community Development
Josh:
In response to your offer to accept comments concerning the Marina Expansion Draft SEIS through today,
I have attached herewith to this cover Email my response to this Draft.
There is also attached a copy of my memorandum of September 20, 2001, referred to in today's submittal.
I have copied Ms. Glenn of the Army Corps of Engineers who also will also accept comment through today.
Sincerely,
William G. Funke
jTENl
a..-----\2>-~S
l ,",'n'
........".'-""',"''''. --"'".t..#~ ~_
7/26/02
,,-,,\
e
e
E-mail Message
DATE: July 25, 2002
TO: Department of Community Development, Att'n: Mr. Josh Peters
cc:
Ms Susan Glenn, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Messrs. Grant Colby, D.A.Routt and Dr. Paul
RE:
Port Ludlow Marina Expansion, Draft SEIS
Seattle
T' rrn~'t IE 0 WIle /R)
ln11 ... f.. lW
FR:
William G. Funke
75 Scott Court
Port Ludlow
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT
In response to the referenced Marina Expansion, Draft SEIS, I question the validity of the marina
expansion map shown in the Draft as Alternative 3.
This Alternative 3 map purports to be the original marina expansion plan considered as part of the 1993
PElS 100 slip marina expansion approval which. as drawn. shows a shoreline expansion to the West of the
existing docks. reaching to and overlapping the current "Scott" docks.
Although the Reid Middleton document of September 17, 2001 lists a 1993 proposal amongst three
alternatives, and the County Scoping document of November 30, 2001 lists a 1993 proposal amongst four
alternatives, in response to my interest is seeing documentation of the 1993 Marina Expansion PElS, Mr.
Josh Peters advised me there was no record at the County that such a map existed.
Subsequently, I made a thorough search of the complete 1993 PElS file in storage at the Beach Club
without finding any marina expansion map nor a reference to one.
I call attention to this matter because at last fall's marina expansion scoping meeting, Mr. Greg McCarry
made the comment that Scott Court residents knew prior to buying our properties that the marina expansion
would be built off shore of our Scott Court property. As all Scott residents will attest there is no record of
such disclosure. Mr. McCarry's statement was false
The appearance and inclusion of an Alternative 3 map as part of the Draft SEIS appears to be the
Developer's attempt to lay basis and support any claims, as first made by Mr. McCarry, that the
unrestricted water view Scott Court properties we purchased from Mr. McCarry were in fact encumbered at
the time of sale by prior 1993 County approval for a Marina expansion.
Accordingly, I would appreciate your soonest validation and supporting documentation that the Draft SEIS
Alternative 3 map is that plan originally proposed by the Developer and the map specifically considered by
the County in the 1993 PElS.
Another issue with respect to the Draft SEIS is that while the Draft SEIS records the Scott Court residents
objections to any Marina Expansion and Marina activity off shore of our Scott Court property, the specific
objections I raised in my letter to Mr. Peters relating Pope Resources marketing our lots as water front
property and the May 1999 shoreline bank collapse and loss of my shoreline property were not included in
the Draft. Accordingly I have included herewith copy of my September 20, 2000 letter on these subjects.
It is further noted Scott Court residents will be directly impacted by construction noise.
Finally, I will repeat the opinion set forth in my letter to Mr. Josh Peters dated November 1,2001 that the
County has violated the intent and requirements of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Ordinance #0-
10-1004-99. specifically:
I ?l-f
~
S"'
G~~~
\\9]
'. <oJ
e
e
Section 3.902, Paragraph 1. "Environmental review of the Resort Plan shall not be piecemealed or broken
into small segments" and
Section 3.902. Paragraph 3. "Architectural drawings including a detailed site plan. and architectural
sketches or drawings showing approximate elevations. sections. and floor plans are required. however. to
ensure that the SEIS considers proiect-level details.".
Along with Mr. Greg McCarry, then representing Olympic Resources Management division of Pope
Resources, I served as one ofthe County appointed "stakeholders" on the Mediation Group charged with
developing these Zoning Ordinances for Port Ludlow.
I can attest the Resort Development process, as set forth in Section 3.902, was agreed to by all Mediation
Group parties and specifically addressed and resolved the previously deadlocked position differences
between ORM and Jefferson Countv. i.e. the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission. with respect to
RCW requirements for a "Resort Plan" prior to creating and adopting Ordinances for a Master Planned
Resort.
Mr. Josh Peters indicated the County Attorney approved the "piece meal" SEIS study for the Marina
Expansion based on existing RCWs relating to shoreline studies. I would again remind the County the
County Attorney approved the Resort Ordinances as worded, to specifically codify development
requirements in compliance with and beyond those RCWs now used to justify this SEIS variance.
The above-cited Ordinance requirements were formulated and must be followed to evaluate the on -shore
impacts of Marina Expansion to the ORM Resort Development conceptual proposals or whatever Port
Ludlow Associates now plans, not to the existing Resort area structures and uses.
The ORM Resort Development proposals were presented to the Port Ludlow community and Mediation
Group with artist conceptual paintings which illustrated major planned changes in the areas immediately
adiacent to the existing marina. These included an outdoor amphitheater replacing the existing lake. the
current marina parking lot area replaced by four single family houses. a new restaurant on the current
overflow parking space and an under ground parking facility to be developed upland of the current marina
parking area.
It is noted the ORM artist concept showed the Marina Expansion water ward only out from ORM t>roperty
only.
It should also be noted that these ORM concepts were used during the Mediation to calculate the Resort
Plan development limits as set forth in Ordinance Section 3.901
For the County to ignore the required Port Ludlow Resort Development EIS process citing convenience of
accommodating and scheduling the many involved government agencies party, makes mockery of the
Ordinance creation efforts and, in my belief, is an illegal action.
Respectfully submitted,
William G. Funke
Attachment: 1
iT Elvi
.. IB-,",,~..,-~"~~.
-- ~OC~_
O"'..,"'''''''....~-,,- +.....
....J,
. .
[5) re <<:: re DWIre fn1
m1 JUl26211 WJ
w~
~ {V
e
e
COpy
William G. & Katherine S. Funke
75 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, WA 9836
September 20, 2000
Mr. Josh Peters
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: Port Ludlow Marina
Expansion
Case # SDPOO-00014
Dear Mr. Peters:
Further to our discussions concerning the Marina Expansion proposal, my wife and I
would like to submit our objections herewith to building any new docks and slips to the
west of the existing docks, as proposed by Olympic Property Group (formerly known as
Pope Resources).
Our Scott Court property was marketed and sold to us by Pope Resources as a premium
water front lot with unrestricted water view, not as Marina front property. The planned
dock extension will be built off shore to a point immediately adjacent to our extended
property line. This dock extension and the resulting re-routing of Marina traffic will
completely block our water front view and further subject us to Marina noise and shore
incursions detrimental to all Scott Court water front property.
Please note that in May of 1999 an arc shaped section approximately 40 feet by 20 feet of
our shoreline bank broke off and slid to the tidal flat. As you can appreciate high tides
and wave action combined with rain water drainage create an on going bank erosion
process in the Scott Court area.
_.......~.. I ').. LJ
-I--~.~Lj,;.~ ~.,
,.~__.u_'-~"....,._,_,'_._ . ~,_....~_.~<O". ~:..
"........ --
.~~.
, ,
e
e
We most certainly do not want our property subjected to the additional boat wake action,
oil and fuel spills and other intrusions, which will result from moving the current Marina
access boat traffic lane to pass immediately off shore of Scott Court properties.
You have received objections from our neighbors, Grant and Lori Colby dated September
18,2000. My wife and I fully concur with their concerns and statements and join them in
asking that the County deny the proposed Marina Expansion design.
A copy of this letter will be sent E-mail to the other government agencies participating in
this project evaluation: The DNR, OEP, WDFW and the Corps of Engineers.
Again, with all thanks for your information, we are,
Very truly yours,
William G. and Katherine S. Funke
.....~_ (1(J
'.~--~~"--~;;j;:-~'--"
-~--""- "::..~" }
-""",,--.,. ~_c
.-->"-,